there are laws on the books that are supposed to prevent children from accessing things they we as a society have agreed they have no business accessing

The problem is that different societies have different lists of things that they deem children shouldn't access (or in some cases, citizens in general). For instance, conservative-leaning U.S. states are increasingly labeling any and all LGBTQ content as being unsuitable for children, furthering their indoctrination against a persecuted minority group.

Parents are in the wrong for preventing their children from accessing content depicting LGBTQ perspectives, and age verification tools in such markets are likely to be designed with the express intent of blocking access to LGBTQ content for minors by default.

I think the disagreement comes from treating “we have laws” as automatically meaning “we must enforce them everywhere at any cost.” The method matters. This approach flips the burden of proof by treating everyone as a minor unless they prove otherwise. That is a pretty extreme shift from how things normally work in the real world.

We also shouldn’t pretend this actually solves the problem. Kids got access to adult magazines before, and they will get access now through a parent’s phone, shared devices, or older friends. If that’s the target, this kind of system is mostly symbolic while adding friction and control for everyone else.

And more importantly, it normalizes something much bigger. Once you accept that accessing legal content requires proving attributes through some approved system, it becomes very easy to expand that logic. Today it’s age. Tomorrow it can be anything else.

So I don’t see this as a balanced compromise. It’s a disproportionate response to an enforcement gap, with long-term consequences that go way beyond the original problem.

Why are all 4 of those in one category, who.decided that all if a sudden?